Patient and Device Selection in Pediatric MCS: A Review of Current Consensus and Unsettled Questions

Current status and future directions in pediatric ventricular assist device

A ventricular assist device (VAD) is a form of mechanical circulatory support that uses a mechanical pump to partially or fully take over the function of a failed heart. In recent decades, the VAD has become a crucial option in the treatment of end-stage heart failure in adult patients. However, due to the lack of suitable devices and more complicated patient profiles, this therapeutic approach is still not widely used for pediatric populations. This article reviews the clinically available devices, adverse events, and future directions of design and implementation in pediatric VADs.

Single Ventricular Assist Device Care and Outcomes for Failed Stage I Palliation: A Single-Center Decade of Experience

Single ventricular assist device (SVAD) use before and after stage I palliation (S1P) is increasing with limited data on outcomes. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a single-center retrospective review to assess pre- and post-SVAD clinical status, complications, and outcomes. We leveraged a granular, longitudinal, local database that captures end-organ support, procedural interventions, hematologic events, laboratory data, and antithrombotic strategy. We identified 25 patients between 2013 and 2023 implanted at median age of 53 days (interquartile range [IQR] = 16-130); 80% had systemic right ventricles and underwent S1P. Median SVAD days were 54 (IQR = 29-86), and 40% were implanted directly from ECMO. Compared to preimplant, there was a significant reduction in inotrope use ( p = 0.013) and improved weight gain ( p = 0.008) post-SVAD. Complications were frequent including bleeding (80%), stroke (40%), acute kidney injury (AKI) (40%), infection (36%), and unanticipated catheterization (56%). Patients with in-hospital mortality had significantly more bleeding complications ( p = 0.02) and were more likely to have had Blalock-Thomas-Taussig shunts pre-SVAD ( p = 0.028). Survival to 1 year postexplant was 40% and included three recovered and explanted patients. At 1 year posttransplant, all survivors have technology dependence or neurologic injury. This study highlights the clinical outcomes and ongoing support required for successful SVAD use in failed single-ventricle physiology before or after S1P.

Expanding use of the HeartMate 3 ventricular assist device in pediatric and adult patients within the Advanced Cardiac Therapies Improving Outcomes Network (ACTION)

BACKGROUND

We report current outcomes in patients supported with the HeartMate 3 (HM3) ventricular assist device in a multicenter learning network.

METHODS

The Advanced Cardiac Therapies Improving Outcomes Network database was queried for HM3 implants between 12/2017 and 5/2022. Clinical characteristics, postimplant course, and adverse events were collected. Patients were stratified according to body surface area (BSA) (<1.4 m2, 1.4-1.8 m2, and >1.8 m2) at device implantation.

RESULTS

During the study period, 170 patients were implanted with the HM3 at participating network centers, with median age 15.3years; 27.1% were female. Median BSA was 1.68 m2; the smallest patient was 0.73 m2 (17.7 kg). Most (71.8%) had a diagnosis of dilated cardiomyopathy. With a median support time of 102.5days, 61.2% underwent transplantation, 22.9% remained supported on device, 7.6% died, and 2.4% underwent device explantation for recovery; the remainder had transferred to another institution or transitioned to a different device type. The most common adverse events included major bleeding (20.8%) and driveline infection (12.9%); ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke were encountered in 6.5% and 1.2% of patients, respectively. Patients with BSA <1.4 m2 had a higher incidence of infection, renal dysfunction, and ischemic stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

In this updated cohort of predominantly pediatric patients supported with the HM3 ventricular assist device, outcomes are excellent with <8% mortality on device. Device-related adverse events including stroke, infection, and renal dysfunction were more commonly seen in smaller patients, highlighting opportunities for improvements in care.

Cardiogenic shock code 2023. Expert document for a multidisciplinary organization that allows quality care

Despite the efforts made to improve the care of cardiogenic shock (CS) patients, including the development of mechanical circulatory support (MCS), the prognosis of these patients continues to be poor. In this context, CS code initiatives arise, based on providing adequate, rapid, and quality care to these patients. In this multidisciplinary document we try to justify the need to implement the SC code, defining its structure/organization, activation criteria, patient flow according to care level, and quality indicators. Our specific purposes are: a) to present the peculiarities of this condition and the lessons of infarction code and previous experiences in CS; b) to detail the structure of the teams, their logistics and the bases for the management of these patients, the choice of the type of MCS, and the moment of its implantation, and c) to address challenges to SC code implementation, including the uniqueness of the pediatric SC code. There is an urgent need to develop protocolized, multidisciplinary, and centralized care in hospitals with a large volume and experience that will minimize inequity in access to the MCS and improve the survival of these patients. Only institutional and structural support from the different administrations will allow optimizing care for CS.

Ventricular Assist Device Outcomes in Infants and Children With Stage 1 Single Ventricle Palliation

Data on ventricular assist device (VAD) outcomes in infants with stage 1 single ventricle (SV) palliation are limited. We examined the Advanced Cardiac Therapies Improving Outcomes Network (ACTION) registry for outcomes of pre/poststage 1 SV patients undergoing VAD implantation between March 2018 and October 2020. Data are collected from 32 centers and major adverse events undergo central adjudication. During the study period, 30 stage 1 SV patients underwent VAD implant with median age of 0.9 months (range 0.1-25) and weight 3.7 kg (2.4-17). Preimplant illness severity was high: ventilator support (90%), ECMO (30%), prior cerebral vascular accident (CVA, 23%), and dialysis (13%). Devices used included paracorporeal pulsatile (50%), paracorporeal continuous-flow (37%), and multiple devices (13%). Median support duration was 56 days (range 3-246). A positive clinical outcome (transplanted or weaned) was attained in 63% (63% transplanted, 37% mortality, 0% weaned). VAD adverse events included: major infection (43%), neurologic dysfunction (any = 30%; CVA = 20%), major bleeding (17%), renal dysfunction (13%), and device malfunction (3%). In conclusion, stage 1 SV patients undergoing VAD support have high preimplant illness severity and complexity, as well as significant morbidity and mortality postimplant. A variety of devices and strategies are employed by centers to support this challenging population.